Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

[acbytesla]

catsmate saysprocreation.

I don't think that is what catsmate is saying.

Irrelevant.

Totally relevant. I need a reason that I should be concerned that people might sometimes engage in homosexual sex. I have yet to hear of a reason. Not one.

 

[jimbob]

You are not comparing like with like. Bonobo's SSSB is functional - it helps resolve conflict, relieve tension and contributes to social bonding. Orgasm is rare. It is not like romantic homosexuality in humans. From your article:

"Its use in animal studies has been controversial for two main reasons: animal sexuality and motivating factors have been and remain poorly understood, and the term has strong cultural implications in western society that are irrelevant for species other than humans."

You also messed the quotes up. @Helen gave that Wikipedia link. I gave a paper on homosexual necrophiliac behaviour in ducks.

 

[Poem]

You also messed the quotes up. @Heken gave that Wikipedia link. I gave a paper on homosexual necrophiliac behaviour in ducks.

Apologies.

 

[catsmate]

Time to put up or shut up C.

If you accept evolutionary biology, then it's a no-brainer. Without a strong preponderance of heterosexuality, species die out. Period.

Oh good grief...
Do actually read what you write? Or think before posting?

 

[catsmate]

This is stupid. No one is arguing that heterosexuality isn't more prevalent than homosexuality. But it is not the norm. As in it is normal and homosexuality is not normal. I'm also not worried that heterosexual sex will stop and the human race will stop procreating.

Indeed.

 

[catsmate]

catsmate says it's a lie.

No I didn't. *You* are in fact lying.

Irrelevant.

No it's not. It invalidates your assertion.

 

[catsmate]

None of this excuses your post. You think children have a right to what (porn) is being served up.

Strawman.

Incredible.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Time to put up or shut up C.

If you accept evolutionary biology, then it's a no-brainer. Without a strong preponderance of heterosexuality, species die out. Period.

That's a ridiculous argument.

My wife and I have two children. I haven't counted how many times I've had sex, but I can assure you it's a helluva lot more than two.

Someone could engage primarily in homosexual sex throughout their life and still easily produced enough offspring to maintain population levels. From a reproductive standpoint, homosexual sex is no different from heterosexual sex using birth control, or after a vasectomy, or after menopause, etcetera.

 

[Poem]

That's a ridiculous argument.

My wife and I have two children. I haven't counted how many times I've had sex, but I can assure you it's a helluva lot more than two.

Someone could engage primarily in homosexual sex throughout their life and still easily produced enough offspring to maintain population levels. From a reproductive standpoint, homosexual sex is no different from heterosexual sex using birth control, or after a vasectomy, or after menopause, etcetera.

There is an argument here?

 

[Helen]

There is an argument here?

You aren't able to spot arguments? That explains a lot.

 

[Foster Zygote]

There is an argument here?

Yes. Given that the vast majority of sex not resulting in procreation is taking place between heterosexual adults, the notion that homosexual sex presents a threat to the survival of our species is utterly ridiculous.

And I don't know if you've noticed, but there are currently around 8.3 billion of us on the planet right now, and the population is still increasing. This should be alarming to everyone. If we don't find some ways to reduce birth rates enough to gradually decrease the population numbers, the environment will select ways of doing it for us much more suddenly and painfully. And before you try to attribute advocacy of dystopian population control measures to me, like forced sterilization, or using unlicensed babies to make Soylent Green, I'm advocating for methods involving investment in the lives of the world's poor, to lift their standards of living and education levels, and most importantly, empower women to control their own reproductive rates, which are proven factors in reducing birth rates.

 

[Poem]

Yes. Given that the vast majority of sex not resulting in procreation is taking place between heterosexual adults, the notion that homosexual sex presents a threat to the survival of our species is utterly ridiculous.

Never said that homosexual sex is threat. I said that biology determines that homosexuality will be a minority and quoted a poster who's taste had changed (in the context of watching porn).

And I don't know if you've noticed, but there are currently around 8.3 billion of us on the planet right now, and the population is still increasing. This should be alarming to everyone. If we don't find some ways to reduce birth rates enough to gradually decrease the population numbers, the environment will select ways of doing it for us much more suddenly and painfully. And before you try to attribute advocacy of dystopian population control measures to me, like forced sterilization, or using unlicensed babies to make Soylent Green, I'm advocating for methods involving investment in the lives of the world's poor, to lift their standards of living and education levels, and most importantly, empower women to control their own reproductive rates, which are proven factors in reducing birth rates.

Sure, that is a problem.
You have misunderstood what I said.

 

[Darat]

There is an argument here?

Compared to what you post - simply saying "it's an argument" is more of an argument you can make in your words without lying about what people have posted .

 

[Darat]

Never said that homosexual sex is threat. I said that biology determines that homosexuality will be a minority and quoted a poster who's taste had changed (in the context of watching porn).

That is a lie by conflating two different things. As has already been explained to you by a few posters.

Please try and stop lying, it is disgusting behaviour.

 

[Poem]

That is a lie by conflating two different things.

Please try and stop lying, it is disgusting behaviour.

There is anything of substance here?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Never said that homosexual sex is threat.

Time to put up or shut up C.

If you accept evolutionary biology, then it's a no-brainer. Without a strong preponderance of heterosexuality, species die out. Period.

You literally brought up extinction.

Sure, that is a problem.
You have misunderstood what I said.

Again, you literally brought up extinction as a consequence of homosexuality.

 

[Darat]

Go through the exchange. I gave the poster a chance to clarify. They doubled down.

Liar.

 

[Poem]

You literally brought up extinction.

Again, you literally brought up extinction as a consequence of homosexuality.

If a majority (ie if enough) of any species are not heterosexual, then the species will die out. That is a factual statement, yes.

 

[acbytesla]

Sure, that is a problem.
You have misunderstood what I said.

We have no idea what you're saying other than you want to restrict people watching porn because you think it leads to homosexual behavior.

You've alluded to this being a problem. But not why other than implying everyone going gay would lead to an end of our species.

If you're not concerned about that? And your last post suggests you're not. What is your problem?

 

[Helen]

If a majority (ie if enough) of any species are not heterosexual, then the species will die out. That is a factual statement, yes.

Homosexuality does not preclude reoroduction.